ksh - was: Re: csh progermming considered harmful
bv at wjv.com
Sat Dec 15 05:25:13 PST 2007
Shakespeare wrote plays and sonnets which will last
an eternity, but on Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 22:33 ,
freebsd-questions-request at freebsd.org wrote these truly forgetable
> Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 21:10:08 +0000
> From: "Frank Shute" <frank at esperance-linux.co.uk>
> Subject: Re: Apparently, csh programming is considered harmful.
> To: Mike Jeays <mike.jeays at rogers.com>
> Cc: FreeBSD Questions <freebsd-questions at freebsd.org>
> On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 08:12:32PM -0500, Mike Jeays wrote:
> > On December 13, 2007 08:05:42 pm Chad Perrin wrote:
> > > I ran across this today:
[much deleted - wjv]
> > <flamebait>Bash has all the features one is likely to need for
> > interactive use as well, and one could make a good case for it being
> > the 'standard' shell now.</flamebait>
> Standard shell for what? Linux maybe but not FreeBSD or any of the
> other BSDs for that matter. It being GPL guarantees that quite apart
> from it general suckiness.
> I used bash for an interactive shell for about 5 years until I
> discovered the goodness of pdksh. About half the size, statically
> linked, not full of bugs and better editing features. Plus it's not
> I tried replacing /bin/bash with /bin/ksh on a Linux system and it
> almost completely broke it. Suggests the Linux folks can't write
> boot scripts without bashisms.
> I'm tempted to try doing the same on FreeBSD (replace sh with pdksh)
> just for the hell of it and see what happens.
I tried the pdksh once and didn't like it. I went back to the
genuine ksh [from AT&T] that I had been using for years, and I have
it on all the *n*x systems I mainatain.
Even though it's bigger then the pdksh [and I always compile my
shells statically just in case] I'd be lost without it.
Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com
More information about the freebsd-questions